EPA Reasoning For Gutting Fuel-Economy Rule Doesn't Hold Up, Senator Finds (arstechnica.com) 93
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Trump administration has for several years been working to weaken federal vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. To justify these changes, regulatory agencies argued that more stringent standards would both cost consumers more and reduce road safety. A draft version of the new final rule, however, seems to directly contradict those lines of reasoning. The draft of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule has not been released publicly, but Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) has seen it. In a letter (PDF) to the White House, Carper says not only is the rule "replete with numerous questionable legal, procedural, and technical assertions," as well as "apparent typographical and other errors," but it also completely fails to provide the safety or economic benefits initially claimed.
"Remarkably, the costs of the Trump administration's draft final rule exceed its benefits to Americans" relative to the current standards. The senator writes: "While the draft final rule finds that the per vehicle purchase price would be reduced relative to the Obama rules by $977 (EPA greenhouse gas standards)/$1,083 (DOT's fuel economy standards), the draft final rule also projects that the increased gasoline consumers would have to use to operate the less fuel-efficient vehicles would ad $1,461 (EPA greenhouse gas standards)/$1,423 (DOT fuel economy standards) to these costs. Adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of each vehicle would seem to be the opposite of the more "affordable" vehicles the SAFE rule promised." Further, Carper notes, the estimate of lives potentially saved over a nearly 50-year time period by upgrading to new cars does not take into account the lives potentially lost to illness and disease attributable to increased pollution from less efficient cars. And of course, Carper notes, lower fuel-economy standards that result in consumers buying and using more gas, means burning more fossil fuels at a time when we should be doing the opposite. "My office's review of the draft final rule indicates that it utterly fails to provide any demonstrable safety, environmental, or economic benefit to consumers or the country," Carper concludes. "It should be abandoned. At a minimum, I seek your commitment that you will not allow the finalization of this extreme and unlawful environmental rollback in any form that even remotely resembles" the current draft.
"Remarkably, the costs of the Trump administration's draft final rule exceed its benefits to Americans" relative to the current standards. The senator writes: "While the draft final rule finds that the per vehicle purchase price would be reduced relative to the Obama rules by $977 (EPA greenhouse gas standards)/$1,083 (DOT's fuel economy standards), the draft final rule also projects that the increased gasoline consumers would have to use to operate the less fuel-efficient vehicles would ad $1,461 (EPA greenhouse gas standards)/$1,423 (DOT fuel economy standards) to these costs. Adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of each vehicle would seem to be the opposite of the more "affordable" vehicles the SAFE rule promised." Further, Carper notes, the estimate of lives potentially saved over a nearly 50-year time period by upgrading to new cars does not take into account the lives potentially lost to illness and disease attributable to increased pollution from less efficient cars. And of course, Carper notes, lower fuel-economy standards that result in consumers buying and using more gas, means burning more fossil fuels at a time when we should be doing the opposite. "My office's review of the draft final rule indicates that it utterly fails to provide any demonstrable safety, environmental, or economic benefit to consumers or the country," Carper concludes. "It should be abandoned. At a minimum, I seek your commitment that you will not allow the finalization of this extreme and unlawful environmental rollback in any form that even remotely resembles" the current draft.
Re: More BeauHD fake news (Score:3)
Re:More BeauHD fake news (Score:5, Insightful)
Why stop at 200 mpg for your reductio ad absurdum? Why not 200 million miles per gallon? One is not more absurd than the other.
However, if we are talking about the realm of the *possible*, 54.5 is a lot more practical than 200 mpg.
This is all moot, anyway. No automaker can survive selling just in the US, it's got to amortize its investments over the global car market. The EU is adopting a 57 mpg standard within two years. Japan will be well placed to sell into that market because it is *also* ramping up mileage standards -- to 60 mpg within the decade.
So, US manufacturers are going to have to design cars that exceed the Obama-era mandates anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
The EU is adopting a 57 mpg standard within two years.
Which seems unlikely to be met with anything except hybrid technology. So, you better be able to afford a hybrid or no car for you!/i.
Yeah, I could totally see that going over well with the huge rural and suburban areas of the USA, where public transportation is poor or non-existent and you absolutely need a car to provide for yourself/your family. /s
I am curious what is the prevailing thought in Europe when these things pass. Do they just figure people who no longer can afford a car are getting what they
You mean reality and technological advancement? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The standard wouldn't have mandated that *all* cars get 57 mph; only that the *average over all cars sold* be 57 mpg. So if you want a muscle car, you'd still be able to buy one, so long as the manufacturer is offering *offsetting cars*. These might be hybrids, or full electric for that matter.
Re: (Score:1)
Even an average of 57 mpg would probably still be hard to achieve in the USA, as suburban assault vehicles still seem to be quite popular.
Re: (Score:2)
There actually is a simpler, more effective way to improve gas mileage, but people won't like it: set a floor for the cost of gasoline.
As with any other commodity, the price of gasoline swings back and forth over time, and when it swings upward massive gas guzzlers become less popular; when it swings lower then people start looking at more efficient cars.
The thing is, what comes out the tailpipe isn't included at all in what the consumer pays. Otherwise, people buying gas guzzlers during an oil glut (like
Re: (Score:1)
Create two tax tiers for gasoline, and the lower taxed one gets dyed. You're allowed to buy the cheaper dyed gasoline only if your car meets certain MPG standards (and perhaps allow an exemption for low-income folks who receive EBT/Snap/Food Stamps/Social Security). Eligibility status could be added to the license plate registration tag sticker.
Everyone with gas guzzler has to buy the higher taxed clear gas. Obviously, you fine the hell out of anyone you catch trying to cheat the system.
This still wouldn
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to get complicated, then try this on for size: everyone pays a flat per gallon tax on gas, and then gets a rebate based on the number of miles they drove.
Re: (Score:1)
The EU is adopting a 57 mpg standard within two years.
Which seems unlikely to be met with anything except hybrid technology. ....
| No. Thermal recycling and storage via fuel reforming can meet those standards with nothing more "rare" than Rayne nickel catalysis
Re:More BeauHD fake news (Score:4, Informative)
The current US auto market is SUV and truck-happy. Many of these vehicles still can't break 30 mpg combined. Fuel standards that actually force automakers to reach efficiency targets of 50 mpg or higher would kill that entire market, and drive American consumers completely insane.
Let's look at what Ford sold in 2017:
https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/... [goodcarbadcar.net]
F150: 19 city/26 highway, ~900k sold
Escape: 19 city/29 highway or 23 city/30 highway, ~310k sold
Explorer: 16 city/22 highway or 19 city/27 highway, ~270k sold
Fusion: 17 city/26 highway, 21 city/31 highway, or 23 city/34 highway, ~210k sold
Focus: 26 city/38 highway or 31 city/40 highway, ~158k sold.
That accounts for around 75% of all Ford auto sales in 2017.
Looking at their top sellers for 2017, you can already see that Ford's fleet of vehicles will have enormous problems reaching an actual fuel requirement of 50 mpg, assuming they include the F150 in the mix. About that last bit:
https://www.greencarreports.co... [greencarreports.com]
At least in the short term, it looks like the newer CAFE standards aren't that tough on trucks anyway. Which is sort of a problem, because if you're REALLY pushing for reduced emissions, giving a pass to the vehicles that are your worst offenders is counter-intuitive (but very market-friendly). Never mind all the people using F150s as grocery getters.
Instead of "just selling in the US", I would expect plenty of automakers - like Ford - to maintain limited fleets of vehicles that they know will sell like hotcakes here but won't meet fuel economy standards anywhere else, such as their trucks and SUVs. Observe what Ford has done with the Focus and Fusion.
Re:More BeauHD fake news (Score:4)
and drive American consumers completely insane
Heh. I'm all for that, just let me grab some popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
You might be. You don't run a major automaker, though. Politicians trying to affect that change through CAFE standards will just get voted out of office. All it would take is for a lot of upper-middle class to realize that stricter CAFE standards would mean no more posh SUVs or crossovers getting 25-30mpg to sink environmentalist candidates for over a decade.
Re: (Score:3)
Ford could make a dramatically more fuel efficient F150, or an aluminum 1/4 Ton. They chose not to because they don't have to, but they could do it. It would have a small (4-6 cylinder) diesel engine and a top speed of around 80 MPH, and a small towing capacity (somewhere 3-5k lb.)
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to have not lived during the 1980's and the Gipper's tariffs on imported vehicles (https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0320/032039.html).
While European and Asian consumers got more modern and fuel efficient vehicles over the decade, we were left with vehicles and engines that were 1-2 generations behind because:
A) they were already developed and all the tooling was in place to make them for the non-competitive US market without any changes in cost to build.
B) the US manufacturers hiked t
Re: (Score:2)
Shocking. Dem disagrees with Trump administration (Score:3, Funny)
Well I'm shocked. A Democrat disagrees with a draft from the Trump adminstration. That's major news.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Those cultists all are.
Re:Shocking. Dem disagrees with Trump administrati (Score:5, Insightful)
"assuming of course that the draft actually literally says what he claims it says"
Why would you assume that?
Because it would be consistent with the fact that pretty much everything the president promises turns out to be a lie.
Re: (Score:1)
That's as deep as you can go? You are an idiot, what fools modded you 5?
Re: (Score:2)
You read that literally backwards.
You've got my support. ;)
That was a waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re:That was a waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That was a waste of time (Score:5, Interesting)
Here, lets take that to the extreme:
If you can provide any sources that have run at least half as many positive stories involving Hitler as negative stories, I'll take'em. Shit, I'll take one who has even run at least half as many pictures of Hitler smiling as frowning or grimacing. Any source that can't meet that standard is full of shit.
Trump is objectively bad, incompetent, and corrupt in a way that no president has been before him. If you don't see that, it's exactly because your standard requires that anything negative about him be whitewashed to make you feel good about him.
I would absolutely love some positive news about Trump. Unfortunately, the man himself doesn't seem able to do much that is overwhelmingly positive. That's not unsurprising, as he's unwilling to do pretty much anything that doesn't make money and benefit himself and his rich friends, and/or destroy something that Obama did. Fill that cake with the lust for fiery vengeance at any perceived slight, slap on a good coating of incompetence, and decorate with the willingness to lie about pretty much everything. What do you get? It's impressive, but it's not positive.
It's striking that most of the positive news about Trump needs to be carefully curated, shot from the right angle, and then cut away from before anyone gets a good look at it, and before he ruins it by running his mouth. This wasn't the case with any president before Trump. They could all get through a speech without whipping out their dick and pissing all over something. They could stay on message for a day or two, without rabidly attacking someone seemingly at random. Trump often can't get through a single tweet without doing that.
It's hard to get much positive news at all from someone profoundly negative, let alone set a standard that 50% of it needs to be positive. Anyone who can meet that bar is being very creative with the facts, and that's worse than those focusing only on the negatives. There is enough factual evidence of the negatives to spend that sort of time on them without resorting to outright lying.
Re:That was a waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm actually hoping this gets through and US car companies start adhering to it.
The entire rest of the world doesn't want shitty less efficient vehicles. US vehicles are uninteresting and basic inside, take away any competitiveness on efficiency and it's the final nail in the coffin for the US car industry.
Trump is literally handing the global car industry to Europe and Japan with this move so it's fantastic for those of us living outside the US; it means our economies grow at the expense of the US due to it choosing to become wholly uncompetitive.
It's similar to the fact Trump doesn't believe in global warming and has cut all investment in green tech, it means the US has dropped out of the race to own the next big industry that's up for grabs and left more for the rest of us. There's only one direction the world is travelling in, but the US is still trying to travel against it which is kind of great for anyone that doesn't live in the US because their loss is our gain.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point, they won't buy them and American car manufacturers will tank. What has this got the hell to do with liberals? We're going to force people to buy these shitty cars? Talk about demented world view, you are an expert. Making America Stupid Again!
Re: (Score:2)
Fuel economy standards generally don't come from anti-authoritarian, pro-free-market Libertarian types. They come from nanny state-ist "we know better than you" types.
If you count yourself as being one of the "knows better than you" types, then yes, you're going to force people to buy "these shitty cars" by banning the production of anything else. Whether or not that actually makes you a liberal is a matter for debate.
Re: (Score:1)
US vehicles are uninteresting and basic inside
Holy crap, I'll say. Greetings from Texas. I'm a European visiting your country for the first time. Things to note: You people are incredibly nice. Hickory smoked anything is like an angel pissing in my mouth (if you understand that phrase you'll know which European country I came from, it's a complement by the way), and your cars. .... well your cars feel like I've stepped back in time. Hiring a premium car from Hertz only to find it doesn't come with GPS as standard, is a fuel inefficient tank, and genera
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might be more a problem with Hertz than anything else. Plenty of modern American cars have GPS units in them, if you pay enough. They've mostly thrown in the towel on fuel efficient cars for the US market since consumers haven't been keen on them now that gasoline prices are so low (and not really going anywhere).
Re: (Score:2)
But the US market is still rewarding automakers richly for selling large, inefficient vehicles. Foreign automakers have sorted that out and are saturating our markets with trucks and SUVs. Do you really think they'll stop just because "the entire rest of the world doesn't want shitty less efficient vehicles"?
Automakers will need to appeal to both markets - those heavily regulated by fuel standards, and those not so much.
He is objecting to a draft he got from somewhere (Score:2, Informative)
His letter says he is criticizing a copy of a document he received from a non-government source, including typos and sections that don't exist.
He probably reviews movies he hasn't seen and products he hasn't bought too
Rose colored glasses of greed driving us all. (Score:2)
The whole reason to mandate better fuel economy is that it can reduce the amount of C02 emitted per unit of usage. This then decreases the sales of fuel by the petroleum industry. Therefore any legislation that reduces the need for automotive fuel is strongly resisted by the industry.
The industry could care less who is in power as long as nothing gets in the way of "drill baby drill", shoving oil and gas pipelines up the asses of all who reside on land where it is deemed feasible, selling with the highest
Re:Rose colored glasses of greed driving us all. (Score:5, Insightful)
CO2 is not the only reason. Other reasons include:
- pollution created to produce fuel
- the acceleration of fuel reserve depletion
- the emission of car smoke and the associated problems of acid rain, smog, etc.
- the continued dependency of the US on Arab states
- the concentration of geopolitical power around oil producing countries
There are many reasons to reduce our consumption of petroleum. If you don't believe in Climate Change there are plenty of other reasons.
This cartoon illustrates it best:
https://www.kentucky.com/opini... [kentucky.com]
Re:Rose colored glasses of greed driving us all. (Score:5, Informative)
The rules don't REQUIRE using more petroleum. Consumers will remain free to purchase fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles. What you're protesting is that people will be able to make that choice rather than having the government dictate that choice to them. You're protesting consumer choice because you are afraid people will make choices you don't like. You're literally advocating using the police power of the state to force people to make choices you agree with.
It is precisely people choosing to create an economy based upon the over exploitation of the resources of this planet that is the problem. We will eventually need to reign in unrestrained consumerism somehow if we are to advance as a species past the destruction of the ecology of this planet. Plain and simple. Whether we reach a point that this is done by agreement within a governance system is moot.
The planet and the ecology it provides does not care if we chose to kill off our future as a species on this world. We either agree politically to stop the destruction by over consumption in the name of consumerism or we will leave nothing for future generations. The choice is a political one at present, in the future there will be no choice to make if we do not make the ugly decisions necessary to become stewards of the ecology on this entire planet and soon. It is not a chicken little situation the problems with greed caused destruction of the ecology are as plane as the nose on your face.
Re: (Score:3)
I've never heard tyranny argued for with such arguments. You're right: letting the people choose is wrong.
When it comes to actions which have significant, long-term, negative consequences from externalities, yes, you do. Otherwise people who are short-term thinkers will keep buying the cheaper car that gets 30mpg rather than the more expensive one that gets 40, even if all other things (power, trim, etc) are equal.
"Why should I stop dumping sewage on my land and be forced to pay for treatment? I drink bottled water anyway, I don't care what happens to the aquifer/watershed."
Re:Rose colored glasses of greed driving us all. (Score:4, Insightful)
"What you're protesting is that people will be able to make that choice rather than having the government dictate that choice to them."
That is correct. I don't want people to have the choice as to whether they can stab people who are ahead of them in line either, and for the same reason.
Re: (Score:1)
The rules don't REQUIRE using more petroleum. Consumers will remain free to purchase fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles. What you're protesting is that people will be able to make that choice rather than having the government dictate that choice to them. You're protesting consumer choice because you are afraid people will make choices you don't like. You're literally advocating using the police power of the state to force people to make choices you agree with.
Either we see governance as that which is choice or we dismiss democracy and fall for the tyranny which anarchy brings. Our economic system which is the use of the ecology is currently a firmly entrenched anarchic primitive one. We can change our use of the ecology but it must be for a reason and that reason can only come from an agreement. Therefore change can only come from an agreement that is a political one. To instead dismiss responsible governance as being something that we are not in control of as a
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus fuck just stop using Tor for literally everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that it Matters (Score:3)
Like many of the current political controversies, this one is dumb. While Trump's new EPA rules may, in theory allow cars to pollute more, vehicle manufacturers already planned to make them more efficient during the Obama years and they're not going to steer away from that course because Trump says it's okay. Car manufacturers—when doing their jobs correctly—look at things in the long term. The big three already got burned by putting all their chips in on gas-guzzlers during the first decade of the 2000s. Consumer demand, the necessity of competing with foreign competition that is driven by foreign regulations, and the fear that a future administration will place even more stringent MPG regulations in place all ensure that the big three won't reverse their course now.
I recall when Trump first announced this rule change the big three balked at it. He implemented it anyway because he knew it would piss off his political opponents and he doesn't really understand how manufacturing works.
Re:Not that it Matters (Score:4, Informative)
Some of them certainly are. Else how to explain why they have aligned themselves with the reduced MPG requirements?
https://www.caranddriver.com/n... [caranddriver.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Trump's new EPA rules may, in theory allow cars to pollute more, vehicle manufacturers already planned to make them more efficient during the Obama years and they're not going to steer away from that course because Trump says it's okay."
Of course they are. All cars are expected to have performance now in spite of speed limits that haven't changed in decades, and you can get more performance if you sacrifice mileage when tuning. It's a software change. They also not only sell the same vehicles with differen
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, $140 each year for ten years is not the sames as $980 now, but what's your point? But you are correct, the extra $980 would be rolled into the car loan, and paid off in maybe 5 years, instead of paying an extra $140 [your calculation, not the governments] every year until the car is removed from service.
It's all very simple, really: (Score:3, Interesting)
To you jackasses who voted for this son-of-a-bitch: let's see how happy you are about this when your kids are developing lung disease from polluted air, and cancer from pollution in the water supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's all very simple, really: (Score:2)
Remember that at the previous election it was like selecting between two rotten fruits and at least most considered if going rotten, then all in.
As for driving fuel efficiency - just tax the fuel prices. A lot less complicated since it would make people think about what car they actually need. And it would be filling some holes in the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
destroying the environment for the sake of profit
Point to where that happens in the Republican energy policy as described in the article I linked to in my previous post. You can't, because there is no policy of destroying the environment to maximize profit. The Republican policy wants to reduce reliance on coal and oil. Perhaps this had some truth in previous policy statements but that's not policy now.
Here's what I'm seeing from the Democrats, they claim the Republicans are evil. The Republicans describe the Democrats as misinformed, ill-informed, un
Re: (Score:2)
destroying the environment for the sake of profit
Point to where that happens in the Republican energy policy as described in the article I linked to in my previous post.
Well, here's one that happened this week: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/23/trump-clean-water-protections-rule-rollback
Re: (Score:2)
Well, here's one that happened this week: https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Trump is rolling back federal government overreach that was put in place by Obama. The federal government was going beyond it's constitutional mandate by regulating waters that are under state and local jurisdiction, Trump was correcting an error the EPA made under the Obama administration. If this results in more water pollution then that's a matter that needs to be taken up with the state governments where this occurs.
It is not within the authority of the federal government to regulate the quality of th
Re: (Score:2)
"The democrats over-regulate to control pollution!"
"The democrats will fuck up regulation to control pollution!"
One or the other, please.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm okay with you for promoting nuclear, but fuck you for demoting other initiatives at the same time as some democratic tirade meaning nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm okay with you for promoting nuclear, but fuck you for demoting other initiatives at the same time as some democratic tirade meaning nothing.
I'm going to feel free to shit all over the Democrat energy policy so long as they continue to fail in looking at what has been proven to be effective in lowering CO2 emissions and pollution.
A majority of our "zero carbon" electricity in the USA comes from nuclear power. (I put "zero carbon" in scare quotes because nothing is truly zero carbon, but if the Democrats want to call solar power "zero carbon" then nuclear power with it's lower carbon footprint qualifies for that label as well.) Tied for second
Sure, they kill more people, but hey, it saves CO2 (Score:1, Flamebait)
Basically the study says, sure, fuel efficient cars will kill more people, but its all okay because it will prevent some "carbon pollution", and all of the paranoid end of the world scenarios of the doomsday cult.
Another factor we perhaps should look into is the repairability of cars. This is ever so important for low income people who cannot afford a mechanic and need to do as many of their own repairs as possible. Fuel efficient encourages desperate efforts that lead to cramped cars of now are increasingl
Re: (Score:2)
Another factor we perhaps should look into is the repairability of cars. This is ever so important for low income people who cannot afford a mechanic and need to do as many of their own repairs as possible. Fuel efficient encourages desperate efforts that lead to cramped cars of now are increasingly difficult to repair due to inaccessible components and increased technical complexity.
No thanks. 60 years of promoting fuel inefficient POS will not be helped by promoting the continued operation of those clunkers on our roads. We should be encouraging the scrapping of older cars, not some misguided attempt to maintain clunkers.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear you, but there's no reason why both can't be done.
There's no good reason you should have to jack up an engine or remove a bunch of engine components to change spark plugs on a car. There's no good reason why you should have to remove the entire fucking front end to change a headlight or an alternator. Just making the engine compartment slightly roomier (and we're not talking much, maybe 6 inches of extra space, total, front/back and/or side/side) would make a HUGE difference in the serviceability o
He;s absolutely right, folks. (Score:2)
Stop them now, folks, before it's too late.
Remove oil subsidies (Score:2)
Let's be honest here, at the very least? (Score:1)
This is an inconsequential internet forum. We can at least drop the euphemisms and spin here and at least be honest with each other because none of us nor our opinions matter AT ALL.
The title of this story could well be "Senator who already deeply hates Trump finds another reason to criticize him and his policies." (which would certainly get less clicks, yes?)
This of course logically says nothing about whether the policies are intrinsically worthwhile or worth criticizing.
But to amplify the voice of this s
Re: (Score:1)
Yup. He was 100% right about Obamacare in this sense. Nobody is interested in repealing O
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, there are parts of Obamacare that people like.
But there are parts of Obamacare that are already gone, and other parts half the country is trying to get rid of.
Re: (Score:2)
There are also parts of Romneycare (Obamacare is essentially identical to the Republican health care plan promoted by ol' Mitt previously) which are crap. Specifically, that the insurance companies are involved. What we wanted was single payer. Hillary Clinton even championed it back in the early days of Bubba. They laughed her out of the room and didn't let her talk again until she took a big fat wad of campaign contributions from big pharma, at which point she declared that single payer health care was de
Re: (Score:2)
- Insurance costs were already skyrocketing,. They only accelerated FASTER after Obamacare. I run a small business - we were seeing annual premium increases of 15-30% before Obamacare; with it, we simply LOST the magnificent, best-possible program we provided to our employees (as well as 50% coverage to sig other and immed family) because BCBS cancelled access to it when Obamacare was invented AND in any case we'd have had to pay a further tax on our 'luxury plan' anyway. So now our costs are increasing
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this is theoretically objective, and fantastically wrong while being incredibly patronizing. It first presumes we disagree ONLY because you don't know as much as I do; you're ignorant or uninformed. Second, it's not how people work. Even in highly informed scientific circles where the issues are reasonably objective (I don't think there's a political spin to Hawkings Black Hole Information theories...yet?) and you have two scientists reasonably equally experts in the field, there are disagreements about the theory.
True ... but it's also the case that -- at least in my experience -- most day-to-day disagreements boil down to either a lack of knowledge of one party or another (or both!,) or not verifying that the words they're using are being interpreted with the same meaning by both parties. Many of the rest are due to not understanding probability, or having differing acceptance of levels of risk.